Ailing Stewart not crook on media

[ManlyBacker]

INTRIGUE surrounded the build-up to the Sea Eagles’ NRL blockbuster against the Storm on Friday night at Brookvale Oval after fullback Brett Stewart’s sudden withdrawl from a media session today.


Read the full article

 

[MissKate]

'Did he get sick worrying about playing against billy' - LOL!

 

[eagle-rock08]

I just hope after the Grand Final that Snake is the Dally M player and gallops up onto the podium and refuses to shake Gallops hand.

Or better still just before he shakes Gallops hand he spits on his own hand and sees if Gallop would shake his hand then.

 

[bones]

Get well soon Brett PSML...... You are a champion.

 

[Captain Moondog]

'Did he get sick worrying about playing against billy' - LOL!

Wonder how Billy feels about playing against T-Rex.:bash:

 

[Mals]

Brett's got nothing to worry about on Friday night - Michael Crocker isn't playing for the Storm anymore so he won't be taken out illegally by a another dog act from Crocker like in the '07 GF.

 

[Stevo]

How was it a dog act? Even Stewart said it was a legal hit.

 

[bones]

How was it a dog act? Even Stewart said it was a legal hit.

That's because Stewart is all class. IMO it was illegal as it took his head off. If Matai does the same tackle he gets suspended.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

2 very different views on this that have been debated on here previously and for mine it was certainly illegal contact to the head.

And if a penalty was deserved for the Rabbits Isaac Luke slap the other night then Crocker deserved much more.

 

[Stevo]

Stewart falling to the ground, Crocker chasing a kick. Even if head contact was made it was accidental. Thus why he wasn't penalised for it.

 

[Ralphie]

How was it a dog act? Even Stewart said it was a legal hit.

I have heard it called a legal hit plenty of times, and I have watched the replay about 100 times. They hit Brett simultaneous to his catching the ball, no problem there. Crockers shoulder and upper arm then strike Brett flush across the head, which knocked him out cold as a maggot. I'm not too sure about this year, but I'm pretty sure that in 2007 striking an opponents head and knocking them out was considered both illegal and a dog act.

But I have only looked at it 100 times, so I might have missed something.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Stewart falling to the ground, Crocker chasing a kick. Even if head contact was made it was accidental. Thus why he wasn't penalised for it.

Im not being one eyed here. This truly is the way i see it after watching that footage many times.

Nothing accidental about it. Head & shoulder of crocker contacted with Stewarts head. Illegal contact & automatic penalty. What saved crocker was that it was a GF & differing rule interpretations are emphasised.

 

[bones]

Stewart falling to the ground, Crocker chasing a kick. Even if head contact was made it was accidental. Thus why he wasn't penalised for it.

Most head high tackles are accidental as well, but if they connect with the head they are dealt with.

 

[Stevo]

How was it a dog act? Even Stewart said it was a legal hit.

I have heard it called a legal hit plenty of times, and I have watched the replay about 100 times. They hit Brett simultaneous to his catching the ball, no problem there. Crockers shoulder and upper arm then strike Brett flush across the head, which knocked him out cold as a maggot. I'm not too sure about this year, but I'm pretty sure that in 2007 striking an opponents head and knocking them out was considered both illegal and a dog act.

But I have only looked at it 100 times, so I might have missed something.

Stewart falling to the ground, Crocker chasing a kick. Even if head contact was made it was accidental. Thus why he wasn't penalised for it.

Im not being one eyed here. This truly is the way i see it after watching that footage many times.

Nothing accidental about it. Head & shoulder of crocker contacted with Stewarts head. Illegal contact & automatic penalty. What saved crocker was that it was a GF & differing rule interpretations are emphasised.

Frank Pritchard was last week cleared for making shoulder contact with the head. Hmmmmmmm?

Stewart falling to the ground, Crocker chasing a kick. Even if head contact was made it was accidental. Thus why he wasn't penalised for it.

Most head high tackles are accidental as well, but if they connect with the head they are dealt with.

Shoulder to the head isn't a high shot or illegal. Just ask Frank.

 

[bones]

How was it a dog act? Even Stewart said it was a legal hit.

I have heard it called a legal hit plenty of times, and I have watched the replay about 100 times. They hit Brett simultaneous to his catching the ball, no problem there. Crockers shoulder and upper arm then strike Brett flush across the head, which knocked him out cold as a maggot. I'm not too sure about this year, but I'm pretty sure that in 2007 striking an opponents head and knocking them out was considered both illegal and a dog act.

But I have only looked at it 100 times, so I might have missed something.

Stewart falling to the ground, Crocker chasing a kick. Even if head contact was made it was accidental. Thus why he wasn't penalised for it.

Im not being one eyed here. This truly is the way i see it after watching that footage many times.

Nothing accidental about it. Head & shoulder of crocker contacted with Stewarts head. Illegal contact & automatic penalty. What saved crocker was that it was a GF & differing rule interpretations are emphasised.

Frank Pritchard was last week cleared for making shoulder contact with the head. Hmmmmmmm?

Stewart falling to the ground, Crocker chasing a kick. Even if head contact was made it was accidental. Thus why he wasn't penalised for it.

Most head high tackles are accidental as well, but if they connect with the head they are dealt with.

Shoulder to the head isn't a high shot or illegal. Just ask Frank.

Frank Pritchard actually pleaded guilty but challenged the grading. He was found guilty of the charge but was successful in getting it downgraded from a Grade 3 to a Grade 2. He was not cleared of the charges.

 

[The Eagle]

So why was it not classed as a knock on when he clearly dropped the ball? NRL's biggest stitch up ever

If its not a penalty its a knock on,you cant have it both ways

Also seriously,the wanker was leading with elbow from 10 metres away,watch the footage and wear some good glasses or something,you must be blind

 

[MadMarcus]

When a player is knocked out it is usually pretty strong evidence of foul play.

Except on this occasion...

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLAYJkTf56c&playnext=1&list=PL796222615635B737[/video]

Karma's a bitch ey Mick?

 

[Stevo]

So why was it not classed as a knock on when he clearly dropped the ball? NRL's biggest stitch up ever

If its not a penalty its a knock on,you cant have it both ways

Also seriously,the wanker was leading with elbow from 10 metres away,watch the footage and wear some good glasses or something,you must be blind

Nope definately not blind. People are hit in the head by a shoulder most tackles of most games. And he might have been leading with an elbow but he didn't hit him with an elbow.

And bones i know Franks charge was down graded. But it was fairly similar and in the end he wasn't suspended. So back to my first point. Putting a shot on is hardly a dog act.

If Watmough does it to Slater on friday night how many of you would call it a dog shot?

 

[firechild]

If Watmough does it to Slater on friday night how many of you would call it a dog shot?

Not a dog shot but a shot on a dog.

 

[The Eagle]

So you think Storm should have gotten a scrum feed after that shot? ?Because if its not a penalty its a knock on,he dropped the ball ffs its not NFL

But obvious holes are available in both theories but let me ask you one more question

If i try to kill you,do you want me to go to jail or should i be let off scot-free because i failed to end your life? (This in no way is a threat,call it an apt comparison as Crocker may well have killed him if it went to far wrong which to be honest,i thought he had)

If so,tell me where the difference is in both instances

---

And id call it unnecessary,Slater is overrated